Stefano:
My request to you to was "to go back and take another look". I was specifically addressing the inconsistencies and errors in the claims that you raised on this list. Given the level of gross inaccuracy associated with your comments, I was compelled to correct the assertions you were making.
I hope you understand.
As to the suggestion that I or Avalon are attempting to force decision changes - I suggest you go back over the mail archives. I responded to a request from Geoff Howard to put forward my thoughts "on where our needs differ from what the various Avalon options offer as they exist now and where they seem to be going in the near future?". I posted a reply, attempting to outline my understanding of the common underlying requirements based on (a) my contribution to early discussion on the subject, (b) monitoring discussion here, and (c) reviewing documentation on you site. Clearly the question prompted a reflection of Cocoon needs relative to the aims and objectives with Avalon. I attempted to address this question noting those areas that I considered as overlapping and areas that I identified as outside of the area of concern relative to Avalon priorities.
You chose to respond to my email with a series of negative emails justifying "why Cocoon should ignore everyone else", and "the value of trial and error", compounded with a technical assessment that was biased in the extreme, in many cases completely faulted, and for the most part missleading. Now you are making the assertion that I am attempting to change established Cocoon designs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Please note that I am simply responding to suggestions and requests from members of the Cocoon community to take a more active role here in the process of block development. Clearly that initiative has shown immediate merit in the identification on conflicts between the Cocoon design relative to working Avalon solutions. I hope and remain confident that the broader Cocoon community will continue to remain open and receptive to ideas and experience that other communities have to offer.
Stephen.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Thursday, Oct 2, 2003, at 16:59 Europe/Rome, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Please - go back and take another look.
Stephen,
while I thank you for your interest in creating synergies, I am not interested in modifying the cocoon block design at this point and I don't see value in doing so.
If our design contains bugs or problems, I would like to this community to find them, this community to learn them and think about them.
Help from others, as usual, is and still will be very appreciated, but you are not giving us any help. You are suggesting that we take a look at your design, instead of coming up with our own.... but we have spent months in designing this thing and we are almost done and ready to start implementing.
[I hope the GT will finish the design phase]
I personally took a look at your design for curiosity and for respect. I didn't see anything that would help us.
I'm biased, I know. But you are as well.
Let's agree to disagree and move on, so that I don't waste anymore of your time making you roll on the floor laughing.
-- Stefano.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
